Adiaphora again: What the Saint Michael’s Report really says about Doctrine

Introduction Two recent papers have criticized the Saint Michael’s Report (SMR) for introducing notions of doctrine that are not in keeping with Anglican tradition: ‘Anglicans and Catholicism: Reflections on the way ahead’ is a talk given by the Rev’d Matthew Oliver on 20 November 2006 to the PBSC Edmonton Branch, Edmonton, Alberta; ‘The St Michael Report: Wrong Question, Wrong Answer’ is a talk given by John Thorp at the Faith seeking Understanding Conference at Huron University College, 12-13 January 2007. I have seen these papers only in electronic form, without pagination. Both papers suggest that the SMR creates ‘a new category of doctrine known as doctrines of adiaphora,’ (Oliver). In particular, they point to the following statement: ‘It should be noted that while adiaphora are distinguished from core doctrines, they are nevertheless doctrines.’ (SMR pp. 11,12, §8) In the light of this statement, Thorp asks, ‘How can there be matters of indifference [the Greek word !"#$%&'! means ‘things indifferent’] that are nonetheless doctrines?’ As only one member of the Theological Commission that authored the SMR I cannot speak for the Primate’s Theological Commission as a body, but as an individual member I concede that Oliver and Thorp have rightly pointed out an error in the SMR, in that this statement in §8 cannot be justified by any reading of Christian theology or Anglican tradition of which I am aware. All matters adiaphora are not all matters of doctrine.

In addition, Oliver argues that the SMR misrepresents The Windsor Report (WR) by suggesting that WR affirms matters adiaphora to be doctrine. Oliver agrees with the SMR when it affirms the WR statement that the concept of adiaphora is a ‘vital doctrine’, but points out that WR does not suggest that individual examples of adiaphora are matters of doctrine. In actual fact it seems to me that the WR, written ‘by committee’ in much the same way as the SMR, interestingly contains one statement that is akin to the erroneous statement in the SMR. The WR consistently avoids referring to matters adiaphora as matters of doctrine, except in one place. In WR p. 21 §36, we read in a section titled Adiaphora:

Anglicans have always recognized a key distinction between core doctrines of the church (remembering that ethics, liturgy and pastoral practice, if authentically Christian, are all rooted in theology and doctrine) and those upon which disagreement can be tolerated without endangering unity. Paul urged Christians in Corinth and Rome to recognize some matters in this way (what to eat or not to eat being a prime example). Since this section of only two short paragraphs is titled Adiaphora and the specific example of ‘a doctrine upon which disagreement can be tolerated’ is that of Saint Paul that is later identified as being a matter adiaphora (p. 38, §87), the clear impression here is that there are core doctrines and doctrines adiaphora. Did the Primate’s Commission have this section of the WR in mind when it repeated the same error in starker terms? I don’t know. However, the important thing to note here is that in its fuller treatment of adiaphora later in the WR (pp. 38-41, § 87-96), the WR does not refer to matters adiaphora as matters of doctrine. Thus I point out that the WR and the SMR each include a misleading single statement suggesting that all matters adiaphora are matters of doctrine. Happily, the substance of neither report depends upon these exaggerated statements.

The SMR was written in a form that intended to be a helpful resource for our Church. The papers of Oliver and Thorp indicate that the SMR is being read carefully and critically. This is an encouraging sign that Canadian Anglicans are prepared to pray and think deeply about contemporary issues that are before the Church. The close reading of SMR by Oliver and Thorp is precisely the type of theological engagement that the Commission longs to see.

But having conceded that matters adiaphora are not all doctrinal in nature (the latter part of this paper will suggest that at least some matters adiaphora are doctrinal), I believe that what the Report says about the distinction between doctrine and matters adiaphora is helpful in our present debate, and entirely in keeping with classical Anglican theology. Nothing of the argument of SMR depends upon the statement that matters adiaphora are all matters of doctrine. In this brief paper I suggest how both Oliver and Thorp generally

and specifically misrepresent the Anglican understanding of ‘matters adiaphora’. On the one hand I believe that their contributions to the dialogue are important, but on the other hand I suggest that their essays are sufficiently confused as to require correction if they are to be useful contributions to the dialogue. I shall briefly consider the essays in turn.

‘Anglicans and Catholicism: Reflections on the way ahead’ In his essay Matthew Oliver misreads SMR when he suggests the following: In the doctrinal universe defined by the St Michael’s report there are two colours: that of core doctrine, which the report defines as the creeds and the Trinity and the person and work of Christ (SMR p.11 §8) and that of adiaphora, which presumably encompasses everything else.

In fact the SMR lays out the extremes of core doctrine and matters adiaphora in order to suggest that most teachings and doctrine fall somewhere between these extremes. Indeed, the entire Report highlights the question of the blessing of same-sex unions to be far from a matter of adiaphora: Furthermore, many teachings appear to occupy a place on a scale between core doctrines and adiaphora. In some parts of the Western church (though less prominently in Anglicanism), some teachings may be called “confessional”, in that they are perceived as being required of the Church by the Spirit in a particular historical context. … The Commission acknowledges that for some on all sides of this issue it has taken on an urgency that approaches the ‘confessional’ status, in that they believe that the Church is being called absolutely to take a stand. … We do believe that this issue has become a matter of such theological significance in the Church that it must be addressed as a matter of doctrine. (SMR pp. 11,12; §§9,10)

Since marriage is considered to be a matter of Christian doctrine by the Anglican Church of Canada the SMR reasons, ‘It is the view of the Commission that any proposed blessing of a same-sex relationship would be analogous to a marriage to such a degree as to require the church to understand it coherently in relation to the doctrine of marriage.’ The

bulk of the SMR is taken up with simple indications of how the blessing of committed same-sex unions is related to such primary theological doctrines as salvation, incarnation, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, theological anthropology, and sanctification. The suggestion of the Primate’s Commission is that in preparation for General Synod 2007 the Church at all levels should engage in such study and reflection. The SMR prompts the question of how these basic Biblical and theological concepts, along with the received doctrine of the Church, inform the current debate about same-sex blessings in the light of the plethora of contemporary understandings of the issues involved.

Thus Oliver does not fairly represent the SMR when he suggests that it minimalizes the importance of the question for the Church. He finds it troubling that the SMR should suggest that ‘human sexuality and gender are apart of this redefined adiaphora.’ A closer reading of the SMR would reveal that it never suggests that either marriage or the blessing of same-sex blessings are matters adiaphora. The SMR states that the question of the blessing of same-sex couples is of such importance that it must be considered ‘as a matter of doctrine’ and especially must it be examined ‘in relation to the doctrine of marriage’.

‘The St Michael Report: Wrong Question, Wrong Answer’ John Thorp accuses the SMR of just the opposite fault, suggesting that it exaggerates the doctrinal importance of the blessing of same-sex unions. In his abstract that prefaces the essay, his one sentence summary of the SMR is as follows: “…blessing same sex unions is a matter of doctrine for the reason that, basically, everything is.” As his essay begins Thorp admits that he will express himself in ‘the most dramatic terms that I can’, because he wants to sound a warning bell to the Anglican Church of Canada to rethink its ‘reckless and supine acceptance of the Report’.

Thorp begins by distinguishing doctrine from discipline: ‘doctrine is the unchangeable (or barely changeable) core teaching of the church, and discipline is that set of rules and regulations that seek to embody and express doctrine’. Thorp’s notion of doctrine here is very static and narrow indeed. A definition more in keeping with the argument of the

SMR would be that of the 2002 Final Report of The General Synod Task Force on Jurisdiction:

When the Church speaks of “doctrine” in its most precise sense, what is meant by this is that body of agreed belief concerning the nature of God, the nature of humanity, the nature of God's redemption of humanity in Jesus Christ, and the nature of humanity's response to God's redemption. The source of doctrine thus defined is the historical reflection of the Church upon the witness of the canonical scriptures, illuminated by the witness of the Holy Spirit's activity in reason and tradition.

Jaroslav Pelikan, one of the great theologians of the twentieth century whose life work was that of the history of Christian doctrine, cautioned against such a static notion of doctrine as proposed by Thorp:

Tradition without history has homogenized all the stages of development into one statically defined truth; history without tradition has produced a historicism that relativizes the development of Christian doctrine in such a way as to make the distinction between authentic growth and cancerous aberration seem completely arbitrary. (Byzantine Theology-Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, New York, 1979, 2nd ed., p. 224)

After defining doctrine in this narrow way, Thorp soon delivers on his promise to be dramatic when he characterizes the argument of the SMR as follows: ‘So it’s no wonder that the Commission concluded that blessing same sex unions is a matter of doctrine – virtually everything is a matter of doctrine, so, of course – a fortiori – the blessing of same sex unions is.’ I suggest that no-one who reads the SMR with any objectivity would see this to be the argument of the SMR. My summary of the argument of the SMR above outlines a line of reasoning that is very far from this representation.

In the second part of his paper Thorp reveals why he uses such ‘dramatic’ language to slam the SMR. He does not want the Church to have the conversation that the SMR is encouraging. He says, …the Report seems to envision that the way to clear up the matter of blessing same sex unions is to have a great big conversation – respectful, with careful listening – of how the themes of salvation, incarnation, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, theological anthropology, sanctification, and holy matrimony mesh with the question of blessing same sex unions. Can you imagine what such a conversation would look like? How could we ever achieve a single consensus on such a big subject? Or, rather, on this massive series of subjects? We’ve seen enough of the homosexuality debate that we know that very frequently people’s theology is driven by their views about homosexuality, rather than the other way around. (I’m convinced that most people develop views about how to read the bible based on their views of homosexuality, rather than vice versa.)

At this point I am in complete disagreement with Thorp. Surely it is precisely because many Anglicans have failed to pray and think seriously about this issue that they continue to approach it with unexamined prejudices – on both sides of the issue. To seek the ‘mind of Christ’ on this matter, and to get beyond unreflective and emotive responses, must involve a submission to have one’s mind and heart changed by reflection on Scripture, received doctrine, the Church’s ongoing theological dialogue, one’s experience of the Holy Spirit moving through the Church at the local and global levels, and the most current knowledge of the human condition that science can provide.

Further, Thorp suggests that this type of conversation would be useless because of the unlikelihood of achieving ‘a single consensus on such a big subject’. The SMR does not advocate a church-wide theological reflection and conversation because it anticipates that a single consensus is possible. In fact §12 of the SMR suggests that doctrinal certainty and consensus might not be possible on this question before the Church be required to make a decision. Nevertheless, the theological reflection and conversation itself will have immense value in that Canadian Anglicans will begin to articulate their convictions

within the context of the ongoing life of the Church and with a common theological language. In many ways this will make a more informed and deeper conversation possible throughout the Church, even between Anglicans who hold opposing views. The result will be a profound respect for the faithful discipleship of the other.

But why would a philosopher caution against the usefulness (let alone the necessity) of theological reflection on such an important issue in the life of the Church? Thorp provides the answer. He makes it clear that he rejects the finding of the SMR because of where he judges that it will lead the Church practically and politically. That is, if the blessing of same sex unions is treated as a doctrinal matter Thorp sees only trouble ahead. First, he states clearly that he has already decided that ‘local option’ is the only practical way forward for the Church that will not promote schism. His essay is not a contribution to the clarity of the issues involved in the blessing of same sex unions, but rather is an attempt to persuade the Church about a practical way forward. The call of the SMR to theological thinking and conversation is an obstacle to his political ends. He says bluntly: ‘The recommendations of the St Michael Report are, in my view, a sure and certain path to schism.’ Secondly, he says: Perhaps most troubling of all is the following reflection. To decide that this divisive matter is a matter of doctrine is to turn up the heat and draw wide attention of the world to the matter Surely it would be a sober and patient and peace-keeping thing to try to turn down the heat, to make the matter less a focus of attention: make the matter one of practice rather than doctrine, or make it local rather than Provincial. If our decision, whatever it is, is doctrinal, then it assumes great importance and inflames the Anglican world even more.

Perhaps Thorp will persuade the delegates to General Synod 2007 of the wisdom of ‘local option’. But howsoever prudent he is in his judgment, the question of the doctrinal character and implications of the Church’s blessing of same sex unions should not be determined by a political agenda. It seems to me that he is practicing precisely what he described early in his essay when he suggested that most people come to the Bible with a certain view of homosexuality and interpret the Bible in the light of their own prejudices.

In this essay Thorp comes to the question already determined that ‘local option’ is the best way forward for the church and he is eager to speak of the blessing of same sex unions in whatever way best achieves his end. If the blessing of same sex unions is considered to be of such significant doctrinal importance that it be addressed as a doctrine in relation to the major doctrines of the Church, and coherently in relation to the doctrine of marriage, then it will make it difficult for the ‘local option’ solution. Thus he uses his ‘dramatic’ language to argue that the issue should not be thought about theologically or in relation to doctrine, but only with the equal seriousness and significance of wishing a same sex couple well in their relationship. He says, Let us hide our disagreement over same sex unions under the ambiguity of the word ‘blessing’. Just as we all say the same words at our Eucharistic liturgies but are free to understand them in a variety of ways, so we can use the word ‘blessing’ as applied to same sex marriages, but understand the word differently. And surely no one can balk at wishing a same sex couple well in their relationship.

Along these lines, Thorp argues that the expedient way forward for the Anglican Church of Canada is simply to authorize diocesan or local option to begin to use an existing prayer of blessing of a civil marriage of heterosexual couples to civil homosexual marriages as well. He suggests the following prayer: O God, you have so consecrated the covenant of marriage that in it is represented the spiritual unity between Christ and his Church. Send therefore your blessing upon these your servants, that they may so love, honour, and cherish each other in faithfulness and patience, in wisdom and true godliness, that their home may be a haven of blessing and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.

This suggestion is made in the light of his plea that the Church not think theologically about the question of the blessing of same sex unions. Thorp proposes that the Canadian Church simply allow such blessings as ‘local option’ without treating the issue of same sex blessings as a significant issue in the history of Christian theological and doctrinal

development. On the contrary, I suggest that the prayer quoted above that Thorp proposes should become ‘local option’ highlights clearly the profound theological and doctrinal significance of the blessing of same sex unions. It would be irresponsible for the Church to begin to use this prayer without considering the implications of this praying for Christian faith and life. Of course, after just such a theological reflection and conversation that the SMR encourages, the Church might discern that the blessing above is entirely appropriate to a homosexual couple. Gay and lesbian couples in the Anglican Church of Canada would then not have to ‘wonder’ if the blessing of their civil marriage was a thoughtless and patronizing attempt to please and ‘include’ them, but they would have confidence that the blessing of their civil marriages by the Church was indeed ‘of the Spirit’. Canadian Anglicans must each and all seek first the mind of Christ individually and corporately before we proceed.

In their respective essays Oliver and Thorp represent the arguments of the conservative and liberal approaches to the question of the blessing of same sex unions. In this paper I have not engaged their arguments beyond pointing out that they are correct in their rebuke of the SMR’s statement that all matters adiaphora are matters of doctrine. Matters adiaphora are not necessarily matters of doctrine. The SMR argues that most of the agreed theological understandings and matters of doctrine in the Church lie somewhere between core/essential doctrines and matters adiaphora. The blessing of same sex unions lies somewhere along this continuum. The Primate’s Commission sought prayerfully to discern where the question of the blessing of same sex unions lies on the continuum, and concluded that it is so closely linked to significant theological questions and doctrines (including the doctrine of marriage) that it deserves to be addressed as a matter of doctrine itself.

Adiaphora in the Anglican Context Before concluding I will say a few words about adiaphora as a theological concept in Anglican Reformation theology. The beginning point for recent conversations about adiaphorism as a key concept for the early English Reformers is Bernard J. Verkamp’s The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554. Verkamp

carefully and helpfully traces the development of the concept of adiaphorism from its philosophical beginnings with the Stoics and Cynics in classical antiquity, to its theological application in the writings of Saint Paul, through the early and medieval church to the Continental and early English Reformers. Verkamp attempts to bring into sharper focus the Anglican via media of the ‘mainline Henrician and Edwardine reformers, consequent upon their adiaphoristic appraisal of certain liturgical, ethical, and doctrinal matters, designated “indifferent”’ (p. xiv). His overall thesis is that, ‘Far from being some mere peripheral appendage to the early English reformers’ thought, the theory of adiaphorism was found to lie at the very centre of their thinking, profoundly affecting almost every move they made’ (p. xvi). Verkamp characterizes the core of the early English Reformation as an ‘Adiaphoristic Settlement’ (p.157). For the Reformers, matters adiaphora, or matters ‘indifferent’ had a precise definition. They were not matters necessarily of little importance, but referred to those ceremonial observances and religious beliefs that were neither expressly prohibited nor commanded by the Word of God. Amidst the plethora of positions that were expounded by the various parties of the continental reformation (and often in direct opposition to such positions) for the early English Reformers adiaphorism insisted on the one hand that the consciences of believers are not bound by matters adiaphora, but on the other hand neither were such matters adiaphora necessarily to be rejected. Following the model of S Paul’s reasoning in Romans 14.1-15.13 and 1 Corinthians 8-10, the early English Reformers insisted that matters adiaphora could be reasonably established for the sake of good order and charity towards the ‘weaker brethren’. Verkamp argues that one of the differences between the English and Continental Reformers was that the English Reformers applied this principle to doctrinal as well as ceremonial matters.

The broad and careful concern of the early English Reformers to distinguish essential beliefs from matters adiaphora continued to develop in the subsequent decades beyond the period considered by Verkamp. In an unpublished recent doctoral thesis, (Richard Hooker on the Scriptures: Augustinian Trinitarianism and the interpretation of Sola Scriptura) Father Ranall Ingalls continues Verkamp’s theme to the time of Richard Hooker (1554-1600). Richard Hooker and John Whitgift (1530-1604) successfully

defended the via media against such Puritan views as those represented by Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603). Cartwright insisted that anything regarding faith and ceremonies that was not commanded in Holy Scripture was forbidden, pointing to S. Paul’s statement in Romans 14.23 that ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin’ by which he interpreted ‘in every action not commanded, there is sin’. Thus all things in the church must be established ‘by and according to the word of God’. In his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity (Laws) Hooker argues passionately against this view, claiming that it erases the important distinction between essential matters of faith and adiaphora: ‘I would demand of them first, forasmuch as the nature of things indifferent is neither to be commended nor forbidden, but left free and arbitrary; how there can be anything indifferent, if for want of faith sin be committed when anything not commanded is done’ (Laws II.iv.3).

For Hooker episcopacy is just such a matter of adiaphora which is not commanded in Scripture yet is permissible. Indeed, Hooker goes beyond this and argues in Laws Books III and VII that although episcopacy is a matter of adiaphora, it is not only permissible but of ‘divine origin’. Hooker believes that episcopacy was instituted in the early church by the Apostles and ought to be continued. For Hooker and the later classical Anglican theologians, not all things that are ‘of God’ are expressly commanded in Holy Scripture. The test for the continuance of episcopacy in the Church is not to search the Scriptures for positive proof texts, but rather to re-examine the whole of the Scriptures to ascertain if episcopacy is consistent and coherent with the divine truth that is to be found there. An instance of adiaphora is permissible if ‘we by some discourse of reason find it good of itself, and unrepugnant unto any of his [God’s] revealed laws and ordinances’ (Laws VII.xi.10).

An essential aspect of Hooker’s overall approach that must be noted here is his commitment and clear articulation of ‘natural law’ which he sets out in Book I of the Laws. In the end for Hooker, matters adiaphora are those things not established directly by divine law (Scripture) or natural law. The test of the importance and legitimacy of matters adiaphora is whether a particular matter of adiaphora can be seen to be derived from either divine law or natural law, or at least to be consistent and coherent with both

divine law and natural law, and is determined to be legitimate and ‘good’ by means of human reason.

Conclusion Oliver and Thorp have helpfully pointed out a lack of clarity in the SMR’s definition of doctrine in general and of adiaphora in particular. In fact there is such a varied and confused understanding of adiaphora in the conversation today (perhaps contributed to by both the WR and SMR) that this concept ought not to become the focus of attention. Nevertheless, I have indicated that it plays an important part in the history of the English Reformation. Although the etymology of adiaphora is ‘a matter indifferent’, in the sixteenth century English Reformed tradition to call something adiaphora is not to judge it to be insignificant. A matter is adiaphora if Scripture does not expressly command or forbid it. Some examples of adiaphora might be of considerable doctrinal importance, while other examples of adiaphora will be doctrinally insignificant. A fuller understanding of adiaphora in the Anglican tradition would require a careful treatment of both divine law and natural law.

The intention of the SMR in establishing the extremes of ‘core doctrine’ on the one hand, and adiaphora on the other, was to suggest that most Christian doctrines fall somewhere between two extremes. That is to say, there are various degrees of certainty and agreement concerning the many doctrinal statements concerning the nature of God, the nature of humanity, the nature of God's redemption of humanity in Jesus Christ, and the nature of humanity's response to God's redemption. Some of these doctrinal statements are clearly identified as core Biblical doctrines authoritatively interpreted in the Creeds and early Councils. Other doctrinal statements, even those handed down from antiquity and acknowledged to be very important, find less consensus in the whole Church. Sometimes certain doctrinal statements reach ‘confessional’ status in particular churches and at particular times. It is clear to the authors of the SMR that the blessing of same sex unions is sufficiently a matter of doctrinal importance for the Church that it should be addressed as a matter of doctrine itself. Thus the call for the whole Canadian Church to reflect prayerfully and theologically, seeking the mind of Christ in this matter. As a

colleague recently said of those who would discourage us from such reflection: in the end, it is a question of whether we really do seek to know what God wants for us, or if we think we already know what is best for us, and we don't need to ask Him.

Feast of St Matthias the Apostle 24 February 2007

Canon Dr Gary Thorne Member, The Primate’s Theological Commission Diocesan University Chaplain, The Anglican Diocese of N.S. and P.E.I.